Dulres3

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, no, no, you don't need to read any of that. > All you need is "common sense" and "stands to > reason" and some half-remembered stuff about > Archimedes and Newton. We're sick of all these > experts and their so-called understanding and > experience. Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll understand the mathematics, so get as complicated and technical as you like. My original point was that the changes in Dulwich aren?t happening in isolation. There are LTNs being implemented all over London. Whether you?re taking a long journey or short one by road, the fact of the matter is you?re just moving from over-congested cell to over-congested cell, and we?re approaching capacity. The sentiment in the original post was that short journeys are bad, long journeys are morally justifiable. The reality is that such a significant reduction in capacity will affect both equally, with the cumulative effects across cells making an even greater difference to longer journey times. Traffic planners often reference ?induced demand? (a concept which itself isn?t as evidence based as is commonly understood), where increasing capacity causes more congestion as vehicles appear to utilise spare capacity. Let?s assume for a moment this is actually true, by removing local journeys from the equation you just end up with the same situation you?re in now. What matters is that capacity is actually vaguely appropriate for demand, and not artificially reduced to the point where things start to fall apart. As for electric cars, even if they magically sequestered carbon and wafted purified air into the atmosphere as they drove around, they?d still be subject to the same ideologically driven policies. It?s obvious at this point it?s not really about pollution.

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you?re still not getting it. There are too > many car trips in London, plain and simple. Data > from TFL shows that 35% of car trips are under > 2km. > > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > That?s under 30 mins walking or 10 mins by bike. > In London most of those 1-2km trips will be > quicker by bike or scooter etc. anyway. Some > people may need a car for transporting goods, > fine. But most (around 60%) of those trips are > also being made by single individuals with no > passengers. > > This government is not going to introduce sweeping > legislation to stem car use in London which I?m > not going to get into but if everyone who was > making those 1-2km trips by car stopped we would > have 35% less cars on the road which is a huge > number, which would also improve journey times for > those making longer trips or who really need to. Short of tracking the entire populations movements, there?s no way to differentiate between a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area poorly served by public transport. Closing roads increases journey times for everyone regardless of the intent, necessity or length of journey.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged Are you using protected characteristics as pejoratives? I?m not sure how making yourself appear prejudiced against people based on race, gender and age furthers your argument. > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't involve you actually specifying what this magical solution is, just that it's out there somewhere. This is the thing, none of the people objecting actually have a solution which is better or even as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good. I haven?t seen any solution from the other side of the argument that doesn?t involve severely disrupting people?s lives in the pursuit of an unobtainable goal. You?re always one road closure away from utopia.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here?s some interesting reading > https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2020/08/ta > ckling-main-roads.html I always find it odd that Amsterdam is held up as example and compared to London when it comes to transport. London has a population of 9 million people spread over 600 square miles, Amsterdam has a population of around 800,000 in an area of less than 90 square miles. They're totally different situations and it's the same for a lot of other European cities that are bought up in these debates. Having travelled to and worked in a lot of them, in my experience people usually live a lot closer to their chosen urban centre than in the UK.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bingo Damn, you're so edgy and original. > I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report. > 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were > against. Yet this is the quote I received from the > project PM > > This decision was made by the cabinet member and > ward councillors and is widely supported by > residents. And they wonder why the turnout for council elections hovers around the 30% mark in most wards.

> Our first project is > a socially distanced micro arts festival which is > running every Saturday throughout August Sounds like utter cringe. Whilst I don?t support the vandalism of monitoring equipment, I think it should come as no surprise. People outside of the bubble are genuinely hacked off with these changes and feel like there is no legitimate avenue for them to vent their frustration.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point is that if someone really needs to use > their car, this isn't going to stop them. You?ve hit the nail on the head there. Ironically it appears that we agree the scheme only serves to make those necessary journeys more inconvenient by increasing journey times whilst at the same time being detrimental to all the things it purports to try to solve (pollution levels, congestion, quality of life etc) These measures are a political statement and won?t be allowed to live or die on their own merits.

> There's over 36,000 deaths from air pollution a year in London This statistic is misleading. Whilst air pollution does contribute to excess mortality, the effect it has is not as well understood as is widely believed, and the figures that appeared in the press a few years ago (which is where a lot of these alarming numbers originate from) resulted from a single paper that was questionable from both a statistical and epidemiological viewpoint. Sure, let's acknowledge that reducing pollution is a laudable goal, but let's also be realistic about the actual risk posed by it. The measures introduced both locally and across London are causing absolute chaos and no doubt pushing pollution levels through the roof. For example, Park Lane and Euston Road, both major arterial routes through Central London, are now 1 lane roads. Lockdown hasn't really ended yet and they're already at a complete standstill for the majority of the day. Most of these vehicles aren't private cars either. They're commercial vehicles delivering the goods that you consume, and the services that you utilise. Even when you measure the results of these schemes by their own criteria for success (usually decreased motorised vehicle usage, increased cycling and reduced pollution), they are failures. > Exactly this. One Dulwich and all the other leafletting groups of car drivers that have sprung up all profess to be mindful of environmental issues and > air quality etc, just as long as nothing too inconvenient happens. It has to be a balanced approach, but as is evidenced by other posts on this thread it looks like the restrictions are set to continue. Inconvenience has a real impact on peoples lives. Outside of the privileged white collar world that so many appear to inhabit, that extra 20 - 30 mins a day spent travelling to your minimum wage job where you then spend 10 hours a day on your feet has a real, quantifiable, negative effect on your quality of life. > So if you had a choice to live on a closed off > road or another with traffic you would not take > it? No. I'd prefer to recognise that the street on which I lived isn't just there for my own financial benefit and should be free to be used by everyone. Bicycle, car, motorcycle or other. If I wanted perfect solitude and bucolic splendour I wouldn't live in one of the largest cities in Europe with 9 million other people.

> There is no move to ban cars. Having spoken to members of cycling and environmental lobbying groups, the desire for a completely vehicle free London has been expressed to me many times. You could argue they were on the fringe, but it is a tacitly held goal of many. Those same groups have the ear of those in power, and those in power are sympathetic to them. > I don't drive 'when I feel like it'. I drive when I need to You appear to assume the agency to decide what is a necessary journey, but seek to deny that agency to others. Perhaps the number of vehicles on the road is a consequence of population density rather than the poor choices of other people. > I just hope the council has > the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply > more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as > anyone of overusing the car for local journeys The 'petrol heads' you refer to are other normal people, just like you, trying to live their lives as best they can. The desire to punish them for their mode of transportation seems awfully vindictive. > What we really need is a council and councillors that properly listen and engage in an even handed way Totally onboard with that. I guess the question is how can that be achieved when the agenda is so ideologically driven? I see my councillors representatives (and MPs for that matter) once every 4 years when they come begging for votes at election time. Outside of the election cycle, their level of engagement with those who disagree with them appears to be exactly zero.

> Oh for crying out loud - a couple of roads have been opened up to people. The roads have always been open to people. As far as I?m aware there have never been marauding bands of motor vehicles roaming the streets of East Dulwich looking for their next victim. > I do have a car and I do use a car. > Motor vehicles get a completely disproportionate amount of space, > funding and general deference thrown their way, > despite creating injuries, deaths and pollution. Sounds like you?re part of the problem that you wish to solve. Why not get rid of the car and be logically and morally consistent?

The reason you?re seeing the reaction to the ?pretty timid? restrictions is due to the assumption of privilege to dictate to others how they should conduct their lives. Unless you?re lucky enough to be able to set your own terms, most of us have to work and travel around under time pressures that are not of our choosing. Some even want to be able to make journeys that are too far to walk or cycle, and don?t fit in with the ?hub/spoke? model that public transport is good at. This is just another hurdle put in place by the local authorities that breeds more resentment and lowers the quality of life for most ordinary people.

If the goal is to reduce the levels of pollution that children in Dulwich are exposed to then the project seems to have already failed judging by the increase in traffic levels in the local area. As for reducing the population's ability to travel, what level of decrease is desired? 10% fewer journeys? 50%? 100%? I'm all for increasing quality of life and reducing pollution levels, but the reality is that we live in one of the largest cities in Europe with a population of 2.8 million people in South London alone, all of whom need to get around. A significant percentage of traffic is either commercial (some of which delivers the things that we all happily consume...) or people travelling to and from areas which are not served well by safe and efficient public transport. Randomly blocking roads and funnelling traffic onto already congested streets is only going to exacerbate the issues that are ostensibly trying to be addressed and further fuel resentment outside of the local political echo chamber. I?ve only really been aware of this situation for the past week or so, but the level of utopian thinking going on is astounding. Speaking as somebody who used to spend a significant amount of time in the saddle in all weathers, mass adoption of cycling is not the panacea that is going to solve all of our transport problems.

Hi James. The road closures that have been put in place are causing significant disruption to myself and, judging by the congestion I?ve observed, a very large number of other people in the area. What is going to be done to address this situation?

Every time one of these closures is implemented the result is increased journey times (with its attendant pollution) and hassle for the vast majority of people who are just trying to get around and live their lives. The reality is that forced inconvenience isn?t going to cause a mass adoption of cycling, and to suggest we should have to walk several miles every day just to go to the shops is absurd. If there are any councillors who frequent this forum, what exactly is the end goal here? It would appear to somebody who is outside of the local political bubble that the only objective is to garner favour from the seemingly intersecting minority of wealthy residents who are lucky enough to live close to amenities and cycling enthusiasts to the detriment of everybody else.